Yeah, it's definitely a troll. I won't speculate about the motivation - whether it's religious or just good old sexual repression - but the disingenuous concern for the rights of incestuous couples is a straw man.

Next KMB will be asserting the rights of those sad souls who are into bestiality, no doubt.

My advice is not to feed it.

Why are proponents of “diverse sexuality” not supporting the poor, ostracised Deaves family?

We cannot use incest laws as the basis of our objections because we’ve just thrown out all those “unjust” laws which discriminated against people of other diverse sexualities.

-

I could not agree more, but my friend you are [no pun intended, and explained later] pushing poo uphill to raise "equality issues" in a Forum such as this which is 100% Politically Correct.

Let me rephrase your complaint as I see it

You are basically comparing treatment of this family to treatment of homosexuals [herein "homos", as all other descriptions {and even homos?} are banned in PC Australia]. As you all know I REFUSE to use the word "gays" to describe these "people"

You have a most valid complaint IMHO, BUT I would suggest that your benchmark of "diverse sexualities" IS PC but [as I understand it] your COMPLAINT seeks to be Politically INcorrect [herein PI].

The truth is that the entity we know as homos has very LITTLE to do with "sexuality" [which is an invented word] but ALL to do with Power Control by a Power Hungry Group [Lawyers], and the whole thing WORKS purely because of YOU, the PC little toad that lost his balls, and ALLOWED this to happen.

"We will talk further on this
you are free to move around
don't try to escape or you will be shot"

Opinionated2

You asked me to please define ‘(my) obscure “Diverse Sexuality” words’.
Google has about 4660 references to this phrase and even AHRC uses it because, I suppose, the ever-growing term LGBTIQQ… is becoming too cumbersome.
You say that “Laws rightly exist in this area to stop parents taking advantage of their children” but how does this relate to the Deaves’ situation where the daughter is 39 years old?
Is that the sum total of your justification for retaining the incest taboo in a society where taboos on nearly all other “diverse sexualities” have been removed?
I am not a Christian as you suppose/accuse but I can see that this has become a standard form of ad hominem attack used by those who can’t support their arguments using reason.
Is a person’s viewpoint automatically invalidated if it is informed by their religious belief?
Is this also true for Jews and Muslims, or only Christians?
My status as an infidel renders most of what you said meaningless but I’ll take the opportunity to refer you to “A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice” into "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States", seeing as you linked your contempt for Christians to this particular issue:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
The report reveals that offenders represented 4% of the priest and deacon population and that 81% of the victims were boys.
That sounds like diverse sexuality to me.

I, for one, will say that I find incestuous relationships disturbing, to say the least. Perhaps I would go so far as to say that I find them disgusting. This is a moral judgment based largely (I think) on my social conditioning. They are, after all, socially taboo. Although the evidence seems to contradict itself, there is some evidence to support the idea that incestuous relationships are more likely to result in defects. If this evidence exists and highlights an unnecessary risk, then there are grounds beyond moral and social expectations for the continued prohibition of incestuous relationships.

I do, however, see where KMB was coming from. My first arguments against incest were along these easily rebutted lines:

* People engaged in incest are often socially maladjusted and of unsound mind. They cannot make informed and intelligent decisions. REBUTTAL: We used to say the same for gay people. Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness.

* Children born of these unions, regardless of health, would be socially ostracised. REBUTTAL: We say the same for gay people.

* Children have a higher chance of defects. REBUTTAL: We do not prohibit relationships between people who are likely to pass on defects or disabilities to offspring.

At the end of the day, I have no solid argument for the continued prohibition of incest other than the fact that I don't like it. I'm hoping someone else can help me to explain what I find so wrong about it.

KMB,

I could have Googled, but I wanted your definition. Your interpretation and use of words helps me understand you.

OK you are not a Christian. Is there a religious background though?

Nothing debated on these pages is irrelevant to any of us - especially not the questions I asked after you created this article.

But seeing you are being coy let me answer your questions.

The fact that she is 39 has nothing to do with it. At what age did the relationship truly begin? What else don't we know?

That is why the laws rightly exist. The fact that he appears to have only gotten a slap on the wrist is troubling.

No persons point of view is invalidated whatsoever until they are proven wrong. Knowing someone's belief system gives one insight to where this person is coming from.

Your use of the word infidel to describe yourself is strange to say the least... but hey you appear strange for many more reasons than just that.

Now on the study that you presented I haven't got the time to read the whole thing. Whilst the study was done as well as possible with the time constraints, I wouldn't use the statistics gained as a very good yard stick.

All through the study the churches legal team and hierarchy had large inputs and the survey never actually had access to the Catholic files.

Of course the survey is better than nothing but it is hardly representative of the depth of the problem. For instance how many of the clergy told the truth? How many of the victims felt secure enough to tell all? Why would the clergy tell the truth when they know that criminal charges might follow and that the church would be open to further litigation.

Why don't churches & organisations hand all files over to the Police if they are truly serious about these matters? What would Jesus expect?

Your turn for answers!

Foxy - I realised you were a woman... TY for the welcome. I am not new here - just returning!

Otokonoko;
If you had ever been burdened with raising an
intellectually handicapped child I can assure you that you would see
why incest is taboo.

Everyone has some genetic defects, its just that they do not handicap
to the same extent.
I am not an expert but I think a couple with different
genetic defects have the same chance of their child having a defect
as any other couple.
There are exceptions to that, such as Huntington's.

There are very good reasons for the taboo not the least is the cruelty
to the children. The cruelty to the parents is also a factor.
Have you never noticed an aging mother taking around the shops her
40 or 50 year old handicapped child ?

You are not even allowed to stop worrying about the child when you
are dead. You do that worrying while still alive.